WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

User avatar
keldon
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2032
Joined: Tue 16 Sep 2014 16:38
Location: Liebe Grüße aus Stuttgart
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby keldon » Mon 22 Jan 2018 19:14

alphafoxtrot wrote:No it isn't by any metric outside of the groups that want US screwed.


It's a DLC problem and not US problem per se. USA is nasty/cancerous enough in a 2v2+ enviroment.
Image
> Sources for tuning Red Dragons --- Sources for tuning Blue Dragons <
亲们!大国梦哦!
小钱钱,真心甜,鼓钱包,放腰间,大国梦,早日圆 。啷个哩个啷♪

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 22 Jan 2018 19:15

keldon wrote:
alphafoxtrot wrote:No it isn't by any metric outside of the groups that want US screwed.


It's a DLC problem and not US problem per se. USA is nasty/cancerous enough in a 2v2+ enviroment.

That cancer results from stupid or otherwise not fitting units, not the general strength of the deck itself. Patriot and ATACMS spread the cancer, not the regular US deck.
Image

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7491
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Razzmann » Mon 22 Jan 2018 19:18

The whole playstyle revolves around min maxing high point units with Rifleman spam. However cancerous some of these units may be, they do fit.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 22 Jan 2018 19:40

Razzmann wrote:The whole playstyle revolves around min maxing high point units with Rifleman spam. However cancerous some of these units may be, they do fit.

These units are unfit to the games scope and fail to find their equivalent in other nations.

Regarding US rifleman spam: That's what you have to rely upon when you don't have any other cost-effective infantry. And one can easily apply the same tactic with other nations/coalitions, which tends to happen less because they have more cost-effective infantry options available to the,m.

But you did use reservist with Eurocorps too, didn't you? That isn't too far off the min-maxing argument either. ;) Its not just the US, the entire meta resolves around this concept; in more or less highlighted ways.
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby FrangibleCover » Mon 22 Jan 2018 19:49

alphafoxtrot wrote:Have a genuine balance team to make sure that it is genuinely balanced. Have copies of Jane's Ships/Anti-Air/Artillery/[inert term here].

Which do you want? You can't have both, cleverer men than me and you have tried and it fails every time.

Have the doctrines and TO&Es of every nation you're putting into the game on hand (no matter how hard it is to get one) or have genuine officers of said military as attaches if you can't find them.

Find me a genuine North Korean officer and I'll take him on as an attache personally.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7491
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Razzmann » Mon 22 Jan 2018 19:56

Markenzwieback wrote:


I think you misinterpreted my post.

I was not meaning it in a "condescending" or "bad" way. That is just USA's strongest playstyle for me and I don't have a problem with it.

Riflemen + M113A3 spam is a perfectly fine thing. Just because something is spammed, does not mean it is automatically bad. Works especially well with the MBT 70.

Min-maxing is also not a bad thing.

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Steamfunk » Mon 22 Jan 2018 20:08

Pretty sure this does not exist. Also pretty sure there is only a single person at Eugen who is decent at Wargame in the first place. And supposedly that person had to work in their freetime for the last couple of patches.


I found out a while ago that they contracted someone else to do the modelling for Israel, and that was about a year before SD came out.

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Markenzwieback » Mon 22 Jan 2018 21:50

Razzmann wrote:you misinterpreted my post

Point taken.
Image

User avatar
nuke92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2016 21:51
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby nuke92 » Tue 23 Jan 2018 00:26

Steamfunk wrote:
Pretty sure this does not exist. Also pretty sure there is only a single person at Eugen who is decent at Wargame in the first place. And supposedly that person had to work in their freetime for the last couple of patches.


I found out a while ago that they contracted someone else to do the modelling for Israel, and that was about a year before SD came out.

Modelling as in: making new models...
or making the entire faction + stats?
how is this even possible O_o
Image
"Spike MR is more accurate I'll give you that but Konkurs has more range and isn't prototype" - Warchat™ July 2017
"ALB added planes, RD added ships, WG4 will add Ekranoplans" - Warchat™ August 2017

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7491
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Razzmann » Tue 23 Jan 2018 01:02

Pretty sure that is not the case. Eugen stated that they used a new way of modelling the DLC units (bad Dutch). The same process they used for SD.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests